Okay, before I get into any of this I will start out by wishing you a merry christmas as well and thank you for maintaining a respectful tone because I really don't have any interest in getting involved in some kind of lame internet argument either, but I am bored and I do enjoy discussing this sort of thing with people that don't necessarily see eye to eye with me.

That being said, I would like to respond to a couple of your points. First of all, I would not call myself a "white apologist" simply because I do not feel personally responsible for the acts of others solely based on the color of my skin. My point is that context is very important any time that somebody makes a blanket statement. When a gay person expresses pride in that aspect of their identity without saying anymore, the connontation is that they are telling people that they are not ashamed of something that a large portion of our society tells them that they should be ashamed of. To me this is clear, maybe I'm wrong though. When a white male expresses pride in being a straight white male without saying anymore the connontations are different because there is no major oppressive force that we are standing up against that has been telling us that we are inferior or morally corrupt, in the case of gays. Now, I don't think that I should ever have to "qualify" my pride as you say, but I don't mind clarifying my statement of pride when I am misunderstood because of those connontations by saying that it doesn't mean that I think being the way I am makes me superior in anyway. If, after so clarifying myself, I am then told that I don't have the right to be proud of who I am because I am somehow responsible for something that some other white guys did, then I would politely tell that person to f**ck off.

Your suggestion that I assert myself in a women's studies class is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I say that context is important. The whole reason why those classes exist is to show women that they are not inferior to men and can and should be proud of who they are while at the same time exposing all of the serious injustices that have been carried out against women throughout history. If I were to just stand up and say that I'm proud to be a man in that context without clarifying my statement (again, not qualifying it or apologizing for things I'm not responsible for personally) it would be percieved as an attempt to trivialize the struggles that women, as a group, have gone through. Furthermore, in a class like that the focus is on women as a group throughout history and all of their achievements and therefore my comment will also likely be percieved as referring to all white males throughout history, in which case I would be lumping myself together with some white dudes that did some horrible things in the past. I can understand why these perceptions would be triggered in such a context even if they were not accurate depictions of my statement or my feelings, and so I would have no problem clarifying my statement by saying that I proud of who I am and I am not responsible for things that other white people did just because I was born with the same color skin.

"Test your theory empirically."

I have had plenty of gay, lesbian, white, black, asian, hispanic, women, etc... friends over the years none of whom I have ever apologized to for being a straight white male and who are all aware that I am very proud of who I am. Nor would I ever apologize to them or deny that I was proud of any immutable characteristic that I was born with.

Chances are you know several psychopaths. You sit or sat next to them in your classes. You work or will work with them in your practice.

In The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us, Harvard professor Martha Stout says that "one in twenty-five of us has no conscience and can do absolutely anything at all without feeling guilty.

Contrary to popular misconception, though a large percentage of murders and rapes are committed by sociopaths, most sociopaths don't commit such crimes. Most are ostensibly law abiding--because of the legal and social sanctions. A high percentage of them are very smart (often charming too). And a majority of them are strongly attracted to power and so seek professions and authority positions with influence over others--without a desire for the actual responsibility, of course.

When stepping on others benefits them a small amount and costs them nothing, they don't hesitate. Worse, when they can get away with it without repercussion, they make others jump or suffer simply for the sensation of power. (Why not? The harm they cause others doesn't trouble them.)

4% of the population. 1 in 25. More in law than other fields. Pretty shocking, eh? Makes you wonder about those around you doesn't it? As well it should, because that 4% is responsible for a disproportionate share of the needless, intentionally inflicted or callously tolerated, pain and suffering in the world.

The disorder arises in part because of genetics and in part as a result of nurture. The most popular theory is that it arises from an early attachment disorder. It's an odd and sad fact that orphaned babies in hospitals die if not handled. Insufficient physical contact and affectionate/responsive care of a baby's needs inhibits development of certain human qualities--apparently conscience is one of them.

By the way, I would like to stray further from the law and interject here that I think the modern western practice of housing a baby in a separate room and ignoring its cries (a practice only common in a recent fraction of human existence, and still not common practice in most of the world--where sleeping with the baby is still the norm), though endorsed by some modern doctors peddling new parenting concepts such as "teaching the baby to self-soothe" (read: facillitating parent rationalization) is very harmful. Not only does it cause the baby very real and unnecessary anxiety (throughout evolution abandoned babies were at risk to predators, etc.) and create a lack of trust in their parents, it stunts their development. Just because lots of other people you know are now isolating their children doesn't mean it's best or even right. Similarly, the very recent practice of sending babies and toddlers to day care is, though prevalent and in the cases of working mothers often necessary, usually a poor substitute for traditional mother/home care, and may be detrimental.

---------------------Note: Sociopathy and psychopathy are synomyms. Modernly, the APA terms it a personality disorder: the Antisocial Personality Disorder.

In the 19th century, psychopathology was considered to be "moral insanity". Today it is commonly known as "antisocial personality disorder" or "sociopathology." Current experts believe that sociopaths are an unfortunate fusion of interpersonal, biological and sociocultural disasters.

Psychopaths/sociopaths are diagnosed by their purposeless and irrational antisocial behavior, lack of conscience, and emotional vacuity. They are thrill seekers, literally fearless. Punishment rarely works, because they are impulsive by nature and fearless of the consequences. Incapable of having meaningful relationships, they view others as fodder for manipulation and exploitation. According to one psychological surveying tool (DSM IIIR) between 3 - 5% of men are sociopaths; less than 1% of female population are sociopaths.

Psychopaths often make successful businessmen or world leaders. Not all psychopaths are motivated to kill. But when it is easy to devalue others, and you have had a lifetime of perceived injustices and rejection, murder might seem like a natural choice.

The following are environmental factors, psychiatrists say, which create a sociopath:

• Studies show that 60% of psychopathic individuals had lost a parent;

• Child is deprived of love or nurturing; parents are detached or absent;

• Inconsistent discipline: if father is stern and mother is soft, child learns to hate authority and manipulate mother;

• Hypocritical parents who privately belittle the child while publicly presenting the image of a "happy family".

According to Dr. J. Reid Meloy, author of The Psychopathic Mind: Origins, Dynamics, and Treatment, the psychopath is only capable of sadomasochistic relationships based on power, not attachment. Psychopaths identify with the aggressive role model, such as an abusive parent, and attack the weaker, more vulnerable self by projecting it onto others. As multiple murderer Dennis Nilsen put it, "I was killing myself only but it was always the bystander who died."

Dr. Meloy writes that in early childhood development, there is a split in the infant psychopath: the "soft me" which is the vulnerable inside, and the "hard not-me" which is the intrusive, punishing outside (neglectful or painful experiences.) The infant comes to expect that all outside experiences will be painful, and so he turns inward. In an attempt to protect himself from a harsh environment, the infant develops a "character armor," distrusting everything outside, and refusing to allow anything in. The child refuses to identify with parents, and instead sees the parent as a malevolent stranger.

Soon, the child has no empathy for anyone. The wall has been built to last. "Human nature is a nuisance, and fills me with disgust. Every so often one must let off steam, as it were," said "Acid Bath Murderer" John Haigh.

In normal development, the child bonds with the mother for nurturing and love. But for the psychopath, the mother is experienced as an "aggressive predator, or passive stranger." In the case of violent psychopaths, including serial killers, the child bonds through sadomasochism or aggression. According to Meloy, "This individual perversely and aggressively does to others as a predator what may, at any time, be done to him."